RURAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR LOWER ASSAM, SC, ST AND WEAKER SECTION PEOPLE (CR 1873 OF 1998) JYOTI PRAKASH SARDA Vs. ASSAM FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One and the same issues are raised in these two petitions, therefore, both these petitions shall be dealt with by a common judgment and order.

(2.) The sole controversy raised in these two petitions is relating to acceptance of quotation of respondent No.4 in both the civil rules, viz., Shri Khokan Saha. Quotations were invited from the intending purchasers to purchase 20.287 MT (approx) Rice and 20.988 MT (approx) Pulses, which were damaged due to insect infestation and not fit for human consumption and stored in Assam State Warehousing (ASWC) Warehouse at Guwahati and Bongaigaon. As per the notice inviting tender, quotations were to be received by the Managing Director of the respondent No. 1, Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd, upto 2 PM of 20.3.98 and were to be opened on the same date in presence of the quotationers or their authorised representatives. The Notice contained the following conditions:

(3.) As per the comparative statement, eight quotations were received for consideration. From the comparative statement, it appears that the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1873 of 1998, Shri Sunil Choudhury, the Secretary of the Rural Development Organisation for Lower Assam SC, ST and Weaker Sec. People, offered the highest rate of quotation whose expected total value of the offer was Rs. 1,53,608.55 (Rupees one lakh fifty three thousand six hundred eight and paise fifty five) only. Shri Jyoti Prakash Sarda, the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1916 of 1998, offered to the extent of Rs. 1,49,705.85 (Rupees one lakh fourty nine thousand seven hundred five and paise eighty five) only; and the total value of the offer made by respondent No.4, Khokan Saha, was Rs. 1,47,552.18 (Rupees one lakh forty seven thousand five hundred fifty five and paise eighteen) only. According to the petitioners, since the petitioners offered higher rates than that offered by respondent No.4, the highest offer ought to have been accepted instead of the impugned decision of the respondents to allot the contract in favour of respondent No.4, which is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.